They were insanely expensive at the time that scared the Congress whom were riding the reduce the debt movement, cancelled it since it had no rivals. I agree with you they should have kept building. Politics tends muck things up.
Not when you gotta pay other bills. Not when you already have a plethora of other planes and allies with the same planes that you can use on a whim.
But I guess the debt only matters when poor ask for money.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted RedCheese...well, yeah I do. You disagreed with the popular opinion. Anyway, coming from a former aircraft mechanic. I'm with you. It's crazy how much money gets thrown around, my mind basically couldn't comprehend the amounts. You've got spare parts to keep a stock of, maintenance needs some training, pilot training, space to keep them.
There are probably other priorities. AWACS you say? Those planes should be getting replaced soon, the fleet of E-3's is over 50 years old now.
From the way it's sitting, the nose gear most likely did not lock into place when the pilot extended the gear. Either the pilot did not notice or the indicators were wrong (all landing gear locations are supposed to go green only when the gear locks in the down position). Landing gear doesn't (and indeed cannot, due to interlocks) retract after locking into place unless commanded to by the pilot.
Boeing made airframe components (wings, tail plane, avionics connection systems), but it’s standard practice to hire out portions of aircraft’s assembly line. Sometime it’s even mandated by the contract for the aircraft so that no one MIC company benefits too much from the contract.
This doesn’t really reflect on Boeing any more than the F-16s being sent to Ukraine reflects on Lockheed-Martin. The F-22 has been out of production 13 years, and while Boeing still provides mission support, it’s not the principle contractor anymore.
That’s not even mentioning that Boeing’s military branch is not really connected to its civil aviation branch in a meaningful capacity. It’s a separate branch under the same parent company which isn’t publicly traded.
You’re totally correct. When asked “isn’t the F-22 by LM” I said yes mostly (meaning prime contractor, but Boeing was a significant sub) you did a good job explaining Boeing’s connection the the F-22.
I wasn’t trying to be misleading or alarmist about Boeing with regard to its stock price, I’m familiar with the company structure. I’ll take my downvotes and go home and think about what I said
F22s are a treasure
My favourite jet
me2 Probably the best to fly
I prefer Saab
It’ll buff right out.
Just doing some stretches
Ouch! R.I.P. grease monkeys, hope nobody failed their piss tests.
U.S. should have built way more, hoping this airframe can be salvaged.
They were insanely expensive at the time that scared the Congress whom were riding the reduce the debt movement, cancelled it since it had no rivals. I agree with you they should have kept building. Politics tends muck things up.
Sometimes you have to be fiscally responsible.
Building more of the plane you've already spent a hundred billion developing can easily be the financially responsible choice.
67 billion according to internet
Not when you gotta pay other bills. Not when you already have a plethora of other planes and allies with the same planes that you can use on a whim. But I guess the debt only matters when poor ask for money.
Except this plane is far better than your other planes or anything else your allies field.
I don't know why you're getting downvoted RedCheese...well, yeah I do. You disagreed with the popular opinion. Anyway, coming from a former aircraft mechanic. I'm with you. It's crazy how much money gets thrown around, my mind basically couldn't comprehend the amounts. You've got spare parts to keep a stock of, maintenance needs some training, pilot training, space to keep them. There are probably other priorities. AWACS you say? Those planes should be getting replaced soon, the fleet of E-3's is over 50 years old now.
… why should they have built more? Honest question! It seems me like the money was better spent on the f35 and now NGAD platform.
F-35 didn't quite workout so well, it's suppose to role as Attack fighter, but politics made into a multi-role fighter which isn't it's focus.
r/NCD about to lose their mind from that first picture.
What are you doing step plane
Did the nose landing gear retract? Was that the malfunction?
From the way it's sitting, the nose gear most likely did not lock into place when the pilot extended the gear. Either the pilot did not notice or the indicators were wrong (all landing gear locations are supposed to go green only when the gear locks in the down position). Landing gear doesn't (and indeed cannot, due to interlocks) retract after locking into place unless commanded to by the pilot.
r/thatlooksexpensive
That look sex pensive
Nah man, there's no fucking your way out of it once the news media gets a hold of the story.
It's just tired
The pilot was quoted as saying, "Shut up! Shut up! Stop looking! No, YOUR jet is broken!"
Ooof that hurts the wallet
Omg, the paperwork!
More work for me !
Yeah we could build like 10 schools… or we could fix this plane 🤷🏻♂️
Fix the plane. In the immortal words of Michael Jordan: fuck them kids.
Since when can you achieve air supremacy with schools? I dont think even the most dedicated school shooters can sling AIM-260s
Oh boy, more bad news for Boeing
Isn’t F-22 Lockheed Martin?
Yes
Yes mainly, but it’s a joint program with Boeing
You're thinking of the F35
Thankfully the F-22 doesn't carry passengers, or misplaced concern.
Well I feel dumb. Can you fact checkers go and fix the Wikipedia page and the USAF, Boeing, and Lockheed pages?
Boeing made airframe components (wings, tail plane, avionics connection systems), but it’s standard practice to hire out portions of aircraft’s assembly line. Sometime it’s even mandated by the contract for the aircraft so that no one MIC company benefits too much from the contract. This doesn’t really reflect on Boeing any more than the F-16s being sent to Ukraine reflects on Lockheed-Martin. The F-22 has been out of production 13 years, and while Boeing still provides mission support, it’s not the principle contractor anymore. That’s not even mentioning that Boeing’s military branch is not really connected to its civil aviation branch in a meaningful capacity. It’s a separate branch under the same parent company which isn’t publicly traded.
You’re totally correct. When asked “isn’t the F-22 by LM” I said yes mostly (meaning prime contractor, but Boeing was a significant sub) you did a good job explaining Boeing’s connection the the F-22. I wasn’t trying to be misleading or alarmist about Boeing with regard to its stock price, I’m familiar with the company structure. I’ll take my downvotes and go home and think about what I said
22: "Would you intercept me?" Runway: "Sure.. \*NOM\*" 22: "Ahhhh... finally got intercepted. Hey, why's there rugburn on my chin?"